Iranian Election

Non Resident Voting

Could this be the beginning of the end for the Islamic Republic? If it ever does fall it could start a tumultuous time for Iran. The next government would not be likely to practice so much control over remote areas and on Iran's borders, where many of the nation's various minority groups reside and have already formed their own nations across the border. At least one or two of these groups (as far as I know) have been looking for the opportunity to separate.

The Islamic Republic is responsible for mismanagement and corruption in the country, but maintenance of security is not at all that bad.

After living under strict order of the Islamic Republic, many citizens are not accustomed to a more open society. On a larger scale, in the resulting power vacuum and possibly weak law enforcement, the case of the disintegration of Soviet Union could be repeated in Iran. As they are close to countries such as Afghanistan, drug trafficking could be the most common activity. Also rich and developing neighbors such as Khaliji Arab states and Turkey will encourage new fields of activity such as human trafficking.

I don't have time to read the article now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see those who live abroad boycott the election altogether. The sham of 2009 presidential election is still too raw for most of us to go and cast a ballot. But is there another peaceful way to change anything? Thankfully, this time moderates and reformists joined forces and I plan to vote for them. Boycotting the election neither helps us, nor is an original message to the regime. The know full well that most of Iranians are sick of them. No need to forsake this bit of right as well and dooming ourselves to another 4 years of a hardliner. I hope everyone comes to the same conclusion, but I wouldn't stake my life on it. Our people are disappointed in our election system. We will know the result on Saturday hopefully. I've been waiting for change for so long.

We did it, and that's the best we could do peacefully. I'm quite relieved. I hope things get better with world now that a moderate is our president.

That is remarkable. Considering all of the resources the government devoted to suppressing the vote, it was a democratic victory. However, now we have to see how the mullahs will react.

Coincidentally, the fella elected is a mullah, but he is a very advanced version of a mullah. The fun part is, the rest of them were not, but they were either military veterans or had strong ties with the military like Ahmadinejad. He is the lesser of the evils available to us, still not a bad choice. We could've done a lot worse. And that's a done deal hopefully. Our supreme leader needed almost a democratic election to wash away the stain of 2009 election if that's possible at all.

I just googled him and apparently he went to uni here in Glasgow not that far from my house.

Afs,

Don't know anything about this guy but I thought of you when I saw they elected a "moderate" and was wondering your opinion. Hopefully it's a big improvement over "rat face. (That still makes me laugh)


TIS

He claims that he has attended University of Glasgow under another surname, but the university has not affirmed this yet. So I can't confirm this part.

Hi TIS

Oh yes, that's an upgrade for sure. Too bad for all the comedians though.

He is more like Khatami, the previous president before rat face. Unfortunately at the time he was in Office, Bush was in office and a great opportunity to settle misunderstandings and mistrusts between our two countries was lost. I'm hoping this is the time that they finally sit down and have a talk.

It was actually Glasgow Caledonian University my older sister used to go there.

I stand corrected.

Despite the election results, keep in mind '79. The failure of the military to support the Shah resulted in what - a democratic Iran? The faux democracies in Egypt and Turkey have shown and are showing their true substance: it comes down to their respective militaries.

People didn't want Shah back then. Had military acted, it would've been a coup. What happened in Iran in 79 is what's happening in Arab countries now, that so called Arab spring. Majority of people are misguided and want religion in power. After three and half a decade, we're gradually ready for a more secular regime on our own accord. But what happened in Turkey, was a king who made sure military wouldn't let religion take power. Who knows what majority of people want and if that doesn't eventually happen? Just as Europe went through renaissance to become more secular, this is the way. Every nation has to feel the grips of their religion on their daily lives to fully appreciate a secular government for which they have fought on their own.

All that said, our military can do a coup after these results. They have strongly religious and financially corrupt elements within them to withstand the change that people want.

Photos of people celebrating election results in the streets:

http://www.kosuf.com/archive/544.php

I saw short clips of the crowds celebrating on the news last night. Sounds like most people are satisfied with the choice.

Btw, how often are there elections in Iran? It seems like not that long ago since the last one.




TIS

It was long overdue, and this one is not Ahmadinejad or anyone from his party, so that's all anyone needed. There is a presidential election every four years. The last one was in 2009. The one that some were killed while demonstrating. We all believe they rigged that election, so that rat face gets another term, but there was no way people would be voting for him again. We have a majority who would vote reformist, and back then people were very mad at his choices.

Congratulations Afs!

I saw a 4 minute clip of the celebrations, really amazing to see all those happy faces of all ages, wish them all the best and I hope things will get better.

Thanks DZ! It's very kind of you.

Lets hope the new president has some moderting influence on the clerics who really run the country. This was a great victory for freedom, and in my opinion it shows the ruling elites were afaid to rig the election like they did the last time.

I wouldn't be so sanguine. Rowhani ran Iran's nuclear program and he insists that it will continue and that America stay out of Iran's business.

Right on DT.

Oli, I don't think Iran would forfeit the right to a peaceful nuclear program. It's become a matter of national pride and anyone talking about abandoning this issue would be labeled as unpatriotic. Kerry said that many countries did prove their nuclear program is peaceful and it's not a complicated matter. We'll see if they reach an agreement. But I wouldn't be optimistic that if they want Iran to give up the whole enrichment program that they would cooperate. Even the most moderate president that could get elected, in the utmost free system there could ever be, wouldn't back down from such a right for Iran, as a member of NPT.

BTW, GCU issued a statement yesterday. http://www.gcu.ac.uk/newsevents/news/article.php?id=59642

Agreed. Seems to me whoever is in charge of internal security is in charge of Iran. All dictatorial regimes have this in common. Never trust a regime that is willng to kill its own people. The Tehran regime was pretty ruthless about this a few years ago.

No regime interested in retaining power ever takes the hint. Their primary goal is to keep themselves in power. The current regime is feeling a bit of heat because of international sanctions, and no doubt they'll give a little here or there, but there's one thing they'll never give an inch on ... anything that threatens their control of political power.

It's a tragedy for Iranian folks, and also for folks in other countries who suffer the terrorism which the Tehran regime continues to fund.

I'm by no means going to trust them, but I'm hoping that they would take a lesson from these past four years. Wishful thinking, I know.

//

BTW, something really interesting that I didn't know, is that even prisoners, especially political prisoners were and alway have been allowed to vote. Some have voted.

Afsaneh, what do you think, is the hope in Rohani really justified? I mean, everybody had high hopes in Khatami who, in the end, couldn't do that much.
If Rohani really tries some meaningful reforms, he will have to struggle against
- the Pasdarân
- the courts
- the Guardian Council.

And possibly the parliament.
What can he really do?

In the context of living here in the past eight years, yes. We've lost unions. The house of cinema was closed down. The organization overseeing the budget was shut down. The economy is in a very bad shape, more due to lack of statesmanship within than sanctions imposed. There's a 30% official inflation rate, but actually the inflation rate is over 100%. The president has the executive power to remedy all these. Our relationship with other countries is a disgrace now. He has the power to improve that as well.

Pasdaran is under the rule of the Supreme leader. If he has given this election to the center-left, it's expected that he would keep Pasdaran in line. I'm not 100% positive, but I'm hopeful that the supreme leader sees no happy ending for himself in sight if he wants to go an as he did in the past 8 years. Executive branch also could champion the free speech by letting more newspapers into the circle of publishing, better internet access and many things that concern Iranians.

The guardian council's role outside the election is checking the laws congress passes and make sure they are not against the constitution. Their role in this matter is very little if you ask me. With this right wing congress, that's the least of president's problems.

Courts are a different branch and the executive branch has no jurisdiction over them, only the supreme leader does.

As for the foreign policy, the nuclear program of Iran and what's going on in Syria, there's a little wiggle room, and anything that can be accomplished relies heavily on how much the supreme leader wants to be lenient on these issues. For G8, maybe being hopeful is way too optimistic. For those of us living here, not so much. It impacts our lives for the better for sure.

Another question for you, Afsaneh, if you'll oblige me: Most of the oilfields in Iran are owned by the Iranian National Oil Company, but are they technically owned by the people like those in Iraq, whose 2005 Constitution states that all oil and gas is owned by “all the people of Iraq in all regions and governorates.” ? Just curious.

Sure, I'm not sure how that is in Iraq, but here government gets paid for selling the oil, and that pays for the whole budget. In our system executive power writes the budget, and congress has to pass that or make changes and then the two branch agree on the changes. So essentially not all the people get the oil revenue in a fair manner. For instance, those working for the oil ministry get higher salaries than those who work for education ministry. We don't have any other major source of revenue and depending on who is in the office, and their plans and consequently their budget, one field gets more attention than the other.

Afsaneh, if you could indulge me on something...how much manufacturing and non-pertoleum activity goes on in Iran? It seems the few petro states that have succeeded long term have done so by diversifying their commerce. I understand your country is under trade sanctions with much of the West, but eventually that will change (Persian culture is not going anywhere) as things always do.
Oil is often as much a curse as it is a blessing, and I don't really know much about Iran, so I am curious about what other interests the country puts its investments.

Well, I can't give you numbers, but the biggest manufacturing industry here is the car industry. Their overpriced cars only can compete with Korean and Japanese cars with heavy custom fees on those cars. Anyway, fun part is, they've managed to establish car factories in some countries abroad or sell the cars they make here, obviously at a lower price than we could get.

We have pharmaceutical factories and home appliances producers as well. I remember during the war, everything was made right here, you couldn't find a single item made outside here in any store. But these stuff can in no way compete with most of what's made abroad. So when Ahmadinejad came to power, he let the military into commerce and they imported everything from abroad, and that's how many manufacturers here went bankrupt. Most notably the sugar industries were shut down, since they couldn't compete with the lower prices of what was imported. Now with the sanctions imposed, they neither can import much, nor the manufacturers inside are there anymore to pick up the slack.

The depth of corruption of Ahmadinejad and Pasdaran is more than I can explain here. Astronomical amounts of money is missing here or there. High ranks within insurance companies, banks, etc. have embezzled money. Even he, himself while the mayor of Tehran has embezzled money.

The revenue of oil sold during his presidency is as much as what was made before him combined, but instead of putting it into manufacturing, infrastructure and creating jobs, he started paying monthly subsidies so that people do what they want with it. The result was a 100% inflation rate.

Sounds like a history that even the people of that country hate.

Why can't the people get things changed there?
Why do people support this form of rule if things are so wrong?

and I guess the really big question is why do they hate others so much including America if their country has so many problems to work out. Are we just someone they can rally against to hide these problems?

Do they just keep leading the people along with lies?

Karl, if I'm going to answer a question, I expect the person asking it have at least a tiny bit of interest in the subject and not just voice their prejudices in the form of questions like "why all of you hate us so much."

Karl, read your history. Iran (fka Persia) is an ancient and great civilization that, like most of West and South Asia was randomly carved up by the British, who made a total mess of things by inventing countries.

After WWII, when the cold war was starting up, the CIA decided the legitimate government of Iran was not to its liking, and decided to replace it with a puppet in the form of the late and not lamented Shah of Iran. While he was a fierce anti communist, and did our bidding at all times, he was also a brutal dictator who tortured, jailed and killed his own people. He stole from the country and basically kept all freedom down during the years he was in power. The people of Iran, who suffered under him knew that but for the US, he would have never assumed nor stayed in power. When they finally had their uprising in the seventies, and they got rid of the Shah, extremists took over the revolution, leading to the ascendency of Khomeni, a religious fanatic, who moved the seat of real power from Teheran, a truly international city to Qum, a religious stronghold, from where the religious fanatics who really run the country still rule. By all accounts I have heard from Americans who have traveled in Iran, the people there do not hate us at all. Quite the contrary. They are still bitter about what we did, and with good reason, but most of them do not hate us. The religious fanatics do, and this is reflected in their propoganda.
In my opinion all this nuclear nonsense and all this talk of a war with Iran is coming from our side for the most part...and at the urging of the Idraeli lobby and Netanyahu. We make no friends there with people like John "I Never Saw A War I Did Not Like" McCain singing "bomb bomb bomb bom Iran" as a joke.

It is a terrible situation, and we are paying the price of a radical backlash to our mistaken policies of the late forties and early fifties.

SORRY your questions didn't make it pass the Iranian Censors.

Please resubmit in a more a$$ kissing way.

Even tho DT seemed to answer most of your questions I think you can understand the rest by the reaction you have gotten.

Many of the countries in that area of the world have had unrest for as long as you can look back in history.
It has become part of their culture some would say.

Change will never really take place in a timely maner as far as I can see. The more people from the outside get involed the more they are pulled down into the grief. My opinion of the mess is that it will some day come to a head and Isreal will bomb the place and all hell will start.

Mean while the people over there suffer, but what else is new? it seems to be hapening all over this world. Even here with so many people just getting by.

If you get a chance go back and read about how they hang gay people in the streets. They have no vote like we have going on here for an example.

Are you kidding? Unrest as part of a culture? In that area?
Well, almost all countries in the world have had unrest for as long as you can look back in history. This includes the US, who were involved in wars at any time during their existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Yes, Really...you can't seem to understand the difference between what I said and what your trying to spin.

I wouldn't mind FS, he is hurt from past discussions and it shows. In fact, nothing short of Israel bombing the whole Iran would soothes his hurt feelings.

Thanks, maybe we start a "Dear Afy" thread, where users can submit questions to you about your country and your favorite television shows.
(I swear, without you and TIS I don't think I'd know what's on the TV now-days!)

But yeah, that makes sense. I mostly asked because I've seen the idea floated around that the reason the US wants to get involved in Syria is that it'll pave the way to take over the Iranian oil fields.

Feel free to ask anything and I try to answer them to the best of my knowledge.

About that idea, I'm not sure how that would help the US to have control over Iranian oil fields. I mean, they were right beside those fields while they were in Iraq. We don't have any borders with Syria. Iraq stands between us. I heard Romney saying that Syria is Iran's way to open seas, but we've the whole Persian Gulf right down in the South, near the oil fields; we don't need Syria. In fact when I say Iran is organizing Hezbollah from Syria, I wouldn't think that with Syria out of the picture, anything changes much, since Hezbollah is in Lebanon and has a political stronghold in their parliament, so technically Iran doesn't need Syria to organize Hezbollah either. Keeping Syria in Assad's hands looks more like Islamic Republic trying to send a message that it's a major player in the Middle East. Downright shameful. All that said, I think I prefer Assad to what's inevitably coming next.

Yeah, good list of U.S. wars. Then there's Europe.
Last Century there was WWI WWII "The Troubles" in Ireland, and the war that ensued when Yugoslavia broke up.

Then there have been countless tribal wars in Africa, and Asia.

But its only in the middle east where some people seem to think its "in their blood." Thats what watching Fox News will do to people's bigoted "minds."

Sorry, wrong as always- It/you would have to hold some "meaning" to me to hold a gruge. Since you don't
I do not, As they say - Your small potatoes.

Nothing you could ever say towards me would cause me "hurt as you say" That in itself makes me laugh just reading your foolishness. You try to be a snide tongue one but you fail each time you try it.

The real question is why you had to be such a witch toward the other poster, Karl? What did he ever do to you? Just because you got a bug up you A$$ on the way he asked some simple questions? You could of just answered them like DT did without being such a ...... and showing your ture colors. Oh WEll


Only the future will tell if my thoughts on Isreal will be true or not. I guess we will just have to wait and see- won't we.
But if you are not worry about such things, I am glad for you.

But I know I'm right. In fact, with every post you further prove my point.

Israel is going to end up on the ash heap if history if they don't watch themselves.